>I'm assuming that it goes through the process to derive an authentication signature > (xor with 0x01 etc.)? Yes it does. > 27/2/2005 - was there a later set? No. This is the "converted" quantity for the string A8YUT VUHHU C9H29 8Y43U H9J3I 23: [41] [38] [59] [55] [54] [20] [56] [55] [48] [48] [55] [20] [43] [39] [48] [32] [39] [20] [38] [59] [34] [33] [55] [20] [48] [39] [4a] [33] [49] [20] [32] [33] and, like Martin indicated, this is the key. [fd] [82] [3f] [87] [97] [9e] [3e] [42] [d4] [e1] [d4] [d0] [20] [c4] [b9] [8b] [f2] [31] [e2] [48] Regards, Tommy On 3/6/06, Martin Pirker <Martin.Pirker@iaik.tugraz.at> wrote: > > Berin Lautenbach wrote: > > Bizarre. I still get a bad sig check. Reference OK, but the HMAC > > fails. Yet all the other authentication signatures work. I'm assuming > > that it goes through the process to derive an authentication signature > > (xor with 0x01 etc.)? > > The derived key is > FD823F87979E3E42D4E1D4D020C4B98BF231E248 > > > I wonder if I'm using an out-of-date version. My samples are dated > > 27/2/2005 - was there a later set? > > FYI, I just downloaded the .zip from the mail archive. > > Martin > > >
Received on Monday, 6 March 2006 19:12:18 UTC